Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and Anr
📌 Background of the Case
Harish Uppal, an ex-captain of the Indian Army, was detained by police during a criminal investigation.
He alleged that during his custody, he was subjected to physical and mental torture, including beating and humiliation.
He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking protection of his fundamental rights and directions to prevent custodial torture.
📌 Legal Issues
Whether custodial violence or torture violates Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty).
Whether the State has a duty to protect detainees and prevent torture in custody.
What guidelines should be issued to prevent custodial atrocities.
📌 Court’s Reasoning
Article 21 – Protection of Life and Liberty
The Court held that Article 21 guarantees not only life but also the dignity of the person.
Torture, beating, and inhuman treatment in custody violates Article 21.
State Responsibility
Police and other State authorities cannot act arbitrarily or exceed their powers.
The State has a constitutional duty to protect citizens in its custody, including providing safety and humane treatment.
Need for Guidelines
The Court emphasized strict procedures to safeguard rights of detainees, including:
Medical examination on arrest and during detention.
Police custody rules to prevent abuse.
Judicial monitoring of custodial remand.
Accountability for officers committing torture.
International Standards
The Court referred to UN principles on torture and human rights, aligning domestic law with global norms of humane treatment.
📌 Judgment
The Supreme Court:
Recognized custodial torture as a violation of Article 21.
Issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention of individuals.
Directed prompt medical examination and judicial oversight in all cases of police custody.
Held that compensation can be awarded for physical or mental suffering in custody.
📌 Principle (Case Law Rule)
Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) established that:
Custodial violence violates Article 21.
State authorities are liable for failure to protect detainees.
Preventive and corrective measures (medical check-ups, judicial supervision) are mandatory.
Compensation may be awarded to victims of custodial torture.
Courts can issue binding procedural guidelines to prevent human rights violations in custody.
✅ In short: This case strengthened protection of personal liberty and dignity in police custody and laid down detailed guidelines to prevent custodial violence — a cornerstone in Indian human rights law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments